Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: June 20, 2022 FILE NO.: RD 22-011

Assessed Person(s): 1539778 Ontario Inc. Appellant(s): David Kambiz Goel and Sarah Goel Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 500 Yonge Street Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1904-068-210-01700-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3268186, 3262933, 3295968, 3351725, 3398809, 3441225 and 3487204 Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022

Legislative Authority: Rules 101-103 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Representative
David Kambiz Goel and Sarah Goel	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Submissions not requested
City of Toronto	Submissions not requested

REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 177842 issued on April 12, 2022 HEARD: In writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1On May 9, 2022, David Kambiz Goel filed a written Request for Review with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) with respect to 1539778 Ontario Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2022 CanLII 30173 (ON ARB), a decision issued on April 12, 2022 (the “Decision”).

THE DECISION

2The Decision is in connection with the 2017 – 2022 taxation year appeals filed by David Kambiz Goel and Sarah Goel (the “Appellants”) regarding a commercial property located at 500 Yonge Street, in the City of Toronto (the “Subject Property”).

3The Decision determined that the correct current value of the Subject Property at the valuation date of January 1, 2016, is $6,928,000, and that an equitable reduction is not required.

RELEVANT RULES

4In considering whether to grant a Request for Review submitted pursuant to Rule 101 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), the test to be applied is whether the requester has established any of the grounds set out in Rule 102 which states:

Grounds for Review

102. A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or

d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and have affected the result.

5The Board’s powers in considering a request for review are set out in Rule 103 which states:

Review Order

103. Upon considering a request for review, or on its own initiative, the Board may:

a) dismiss the request; or

b) after providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions:

(i) confirm, vary, or cancel the decision; or

(ii) order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.

ISSUES

6In his Request for Review, Mr. Goel requests that the Board vary the Decision or cancel the Decision and order a rehearing by another Board Member. In overview, Mr. Goel cites five grounds in support of the request as follows:

a. The sale properties presented by MPAC are not in the same vicinity and are not affected by the same market influences as the Subject Property, and as such are not valid sale properties for comparison purposes. Mr. Goel further submits that due to location, building area, and lot size, MPAC’s properties are not appropriate for comparison purposes;

b. that as a self-represented party, Mr. Goel did not provide properties in “an acceptable format of assessment values” and that this amounts to procedural unfairness as none of his properties were used for comparison purposes in determining the current value of the Subject Property;

c. that the Board could have used Mr. Goel’s properties for equitable reduction purposes under s. 44(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. A.31 (the “Act”) to reduce the current value of the Subject Property;

d. that MPAC’s evidence inappropriately considered the renovation and addition of the Subject Property which occurred in 2011 prior to the current assessment cycle and previously considered in connection with the 2013 and 2014 taxation year assessments; and,

e. Mr. Goel presents new evidence for consideration.

7Per the above grounds cited by Mr. Goel, Rule 102 (a), (b), (c), and (d) are submitted by Mr. Goel as being engaged.

8The Board did not request submissions from the other parties.

RESULT

9The Request to Review is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

10The Board will deal with each of the cited grounds in the Request for Review individually.

Issue 1: Did the hearing Member err in using MPAC’s property sales for valuation comparison purposes?

11In paragraph 22, the hearing Member, correctly states that: “In determining the correct current value, the Board references s. 19(1) of the Act, which states that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value, which is defined as the “… amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer”.

12The Board notes that the Appellants did not provide any evidence of property sales for valuation comparison purposes and as such, there was no evidence before the hearing Member, other than the property sales presented by MPAC.

13In paragraphs 18, 19, and 20 of the Decision, the hearing Member rejects the Appellants’ arguments in connection with the relative desirability of the location and variability of market influences between the Subject Property and MPAC’s proposed sale properties for valuation comparison purposes. The hearing Member considers and addresses the Appellants’ concerns regarding vicinity, desirability, and market influences. The hearing Member also notes that the Appellants provide no quantitative evidence in support of the Appellants’ arguments.

14In the Analysis section under Issue 2 of the Decision, the hearing Member considers and addresses the property sales before her for valuation comparison purposes.

15In the same section as above, at paragraphs 32 – 35, the hearing Member considers and addresses the Appellants’ evidence but notes at paragraph 40 that the Appellants’ comparable properties and alternate proposed current value are rejected as they are not based on sale evidence.

Finding on Issue 1

16The Board finds no error in the hearing Member’s assessment of the evidence before her in determining the current value of the Subject Property including the use of two of the three property sales submitted by MPAC.

Issue 2: Did the hearing Member’s rejection of the Appellants’ evidence amount to procedural unfairness?

17The Board has already noted s. 19(1) of the Act in determining the correct current value of a property as the “… amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer”.

18Per the foregoing, the hearing Member is bound to consider property sales in determining the current value of the Subject Property.

19The evidence submitted by the Appellants was based on assessment values not sold values.

Finding on Issue 2

20The Board finds that the Appellants presents no valid grounds to assert procedural unfairness on the part of the hearing Member in rendering her Decision.

Issue 3: Did the hearing Member err in not using the Appellants’ properties presented for valuation comparison purposes in consideration of an equitable reduction pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html#sec44subsec3_smooth)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)?

21In paragraph 5 of the Decision, the hearing Member indicates that “the Appellants assert no position and present no evidence in support of equity”. The hearing Member considers and addresses the issue of equitable reduction.

22Further, in order for the hearing Member to consider an equitable reduction argument by the Appellants, the Appellants would have had to provide additional information in evidence such as both the sold values and assessment values of similar properties within the vicinity so that a determination could be made by the hearing Member, or other information in support of the properties being similar to the Subject Property for equity and comparison purposes. No such evidence was presented by the Appellants.

Finding on Issue 3

23The Board finds no error in the Decision in connection with equitable reduction.

Issue 4: Did MPAC’s evidence inappropriately consider the renovation and addition of the Subject Property in 2011?

24Regarding the renovation of the Subject Property, the Decision refers to MPAC’s Witness testimony in paragraph 25 for information purposes only.

25There is no other reference to this matter in the Decision.

26The hearing Member did not use this information to make her determination of the current value of the Subject Property.

Finding on Issue 4

27The Board finds no merit to arguments based on the grounds of the 2011 renovation and addition to the Subject Property in the determination of current value.

Issue 5: New evidence

28In the Request for Review, Mr. Goel presents new evidence as grounds for a review.

29The new evidence is attached to the Request to Review as Schedules 2 through 5 and includes a document titled “YDS Traffic and Demographics Data”; a Toronto Star Article referring to the 10 busiest intersections in Toronto, dated October 16, 2015; a Board decision dated October 30, 2019; and a Divisional Court decision dated March 1, 2017.

30Rule 102 (d) requires that such evidence could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.

31Neither is the case here.

Finding on Issue 5

32The Board finds no grounds for the Request for Review based on new evidence.

CONCLUSION

33The Board finds no valid grounds for the Request for Review.

ORDER

34The Board orders the Request for Review dismissed.